The Fascist Pakistan Army: Invaders of Their Own Country

Nations take great pride in their armed forces. Nations cherish them and protected by them. In contrast, people of Pakistan have only suffered hardships and traumas at the hands of its own armed forces.

The dream of an independent Pakistan has gone sour because of all the military generals who are acting no less than like a mafia or gang at national level. Imagine a mafia â€œlegallyâ€ consuming more than 80% of the national resources and armed to the teeth with all kinds of weapons.

The country suffered a great loss in 1971 when its own Army surrendered in shame after committing one of the worst human right crimes in history and perpetrating the holocaust of three million people who were the citizens of Pakistan. That was just the beginning.

In the last six decades Pakistan Army has transformed into an organized crime syndicate and a business mafia that occupies the country it proclaims to defend. This criminal organization is the biggest stake holder and stock holder in every big business of Pakistan by virtue of the power it has.

Pakistan military has the biggest share in Pakistan's stock exchange. It operates commercial bank, airline, steel, cement, telecom, petroleum and energy, education, sports, health care and even chains of grocery shops and bakeries.
In short, the militaryâ€™s monopoly is present in every sector of Pakistan economy. To the contrary, its performance at the professional level is zero. Instead of defending Pakistan, it has undermined the very foundations of this country. Particularly, under General Musharraf, it has bankrupted Pakistan of its ideological grounds for existence. Instead of defending its physical borders, the army that is being ranked as the seventh biggest army in the world has only brought embarrassment to the nation in the battle fields of Kargil and Dhaka. On top of that, since 2001, it has started acting like occupation force in many parts of the country. Bombing homes, mosques and schools has become a routine.

Although the military permanently remained very active behind the political scene, the criminal Generals of Pakistan betrayed the nation four times by breaking their oath and constitution and overthrowing civilian governments.
They over threw elected government and captured the power to fulfill their evil desires and to protect the interests of their imperialist masters. The Pakistani Army has played an evil role in mainstream politics throughout the history with the objective to manipulate everything to their advantage.
Even though Pakistan is a republic, the military Generals have ruled the country more than public representatives. It is because of these Generals that a peopleâ€™s government could not take root in Pakistan.

The Generals of Pakistan consider themselves above every law and they take pride in disobeying orders from civilian government. It has been their practice since 1947. General Douglas Gracey, the first commander-in-chief of Pakistan Army started this tradition by disobeying orders from founder and Governor General of Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah during the first Kashmir War. Instead, Gracey sought instructions by telephone from his superior, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, in New Delhi. Since then it has been a rule in Pakistan Army to break their oath and to take orders from outside. From Gracey to Musharraf, every last one of them used power to sabotage political process that could lead to self-rule and stability of the country. They have been serving their outsider masters instead of defending the physical and ideological borders of Pakistan.
Pakistan came into being in August 1947 but partition plan of India had been announced in June 1947. British divided national resources between two newly formed states. British army had been divided and according to this division six armored, eight artillery and eight infantry regiments formed Pakistan's army. Division of armed forces was according to demographic division of states and 4000 officers and 15,000 soldiers, 2332 Air Force personnel and 74 air crafts were given to Pakistan that was approximately 36% of total resources. General Douglas Gracey was acting Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan Army and Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, was still Commander-in-Chief of the armies of both India and Pakistan.

Soon after the independence, US started investing in Pakistan Army to prepare an agent in South Asia to thwart Soviet ambitions and use Pakistan like a South Asian Israel. US backed every criminal act of Army Generals to crush peopleâ€™s rule in the country. Since the inception, this army has been serving as a tool in Washingtonâ€™s strategic planning for the region. The US granted $400 million to establish and strengthen Pakistanâ€™s armed forces initially. The US needed a terrorist arm in the region to play its strategic game against the Soviet Union. For this purpose, Washington backed successive dictatorships in Pakistan, and also throw them out of power when they outlived their utility.

Indo-Pakistan War of 1947

The first war between India and Pakistan began in October 1947 and ended in December 1948. At that time, both Pakistan and India were trying diplomatic process for the merger of Jammu and Kashmir. To sabotage diplomatic process, Pakistan Army played a cowardice game. Pakistan Army prepared armed tribesmen to infiltrate into Kashmir and upraise anarchy. This act of cowardice led to signing an instrument of accession with India in October 1947. Pakistan Army then joined infiltrators and a war broke out.

Initially Pakistani Army fought with armed forces of Kashmir and they gained significant successes. Maharajah of Kashmir thus requested Indian government for help and Indian government deployed its forces in November 1947. So far Pakistani forces had been facing resistance only from Kashmiri forces. That enabled them to enter far into Kashmir. After the deployment of India forces, Pakistan Army and Army-backed tribesman faced fierce resistance. Though Indian Army was facing serious logistic problems, it thwarted the advancement of Pakistan Army.

Indian Army suffered setbacks due to logistic problems and also that it was not prepared for a war just two months after partition, especially for a high altitude combat. Whereas Pakistan Army had planned and conducted this operation with the help of tribesman of NWFP, who were able to face extreme weather and mountain range. Still Indian army had been successful in regaining most of the area. In 1948, United Nation entered into conflict and broke a ceasefire in January 1949.

The cease- fire agreement formalized the military status quo, leaving about 30 percent of Kashmir under Pakistani control. Apparently it was a major success but in reality, it brought such a disaster to the Kashmir cause that it can still be witnessed. Pakistan lost 70 percent of the Kashmir territory in the process. This created reluctance and hatred among Kashmiris for Pakistan and Pro-Indian Kashmiri political parties gained significant strength in Kashmir.

First Coup

Pakistan's first democratic elections were scheduled in 1958. But a democratic government and a strong parliament was not in the interest of US foreign policy. General Mohammed Ayub Khan, the commander-in-chief, took over the government in a coup and cancelled the elections that were a threat for militaryâ€™s blind power. Ayub Khan imposed Martial Law in the country and seized constitution. Under Ayub Khan rule, Pakistan became a US garrison state in South Asia. During this period, US granted $630 million directly and $670 million indirectly to purchase military equipment. US also paid salary of General Ayub Khan.

General Ayub Khan, with the support of US, made every effort to thwart peoplesâ€™ self-rule in the country. He used every dictatorial method to shut voices against his brutal attacks on democratic process. In this period, Ms. Fatima Jinnah, sister of the Founder of Pakistan, who was at that time most respected woman in Pakistan, raised voice against military dictatorship and criminal acts of the Generals. Ayub Khan and his companions played their dirty games to defame this respected lady.

War of 1965

During Ayub period, Pakistan army planned an operation against India after a green signal from Washington. Operation Giberaltar was planned to infiltrate and start rebellion in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistani soldiers trained guerillas for infiltrating into Kashmir and starting an insurgency among local Kashmiris. This plan failed as locals did not respond as expected by the puppet military of Pakistan. Infiltrators were soon exposed and it resulted in a counterattack by Indian forces.

After the shameful failure of Operation Giberaltar, the coward army planned another Operation, called Grand Slam, to cover-up its embarrassment. The plan was to capture Akhnur, a north-eastern town of Jammu that was a key region for communication between Kashmir and the rest of India. This however resulted in more problems for Pakistan as India countered by crossing the international border further south in Punjab. As a result, a large scale war started between the two neighbors. The war lasted five weeks, resulting in thousands of casualties on both sides and ended in a United Nations (UN) mandated ceasefire. The war remained largely inconclusive despite Pakistan suffering relatively more losses.

Though the war was indecisive, Pakistan suffered much heavier material and personnel casualties compared to India. Many war historians believe that had the war continued, with growing losses and decreasing supplies, Pakistan would have been eventually defeated. The Pakistani Army's failures was apparent right from the beginning as Pakistan Army had expectations that local Kashmiri will support insurgency started by Pakistani soldiers. But the people of Kashmir, for whatever reason, did not revolt against Indian government. On the contrary they provided Indian army with information about Pakistani intruders.

Under the influence of controlled propaganda, many Pakistanis rated the performance of military positively and September 6 is celebrated as 'Defence Day' in Pakistan in commemoration of the successful defense of Sailkot against the Indian army. However facts are not always based upon emotions. This war left a lot to desire as Pakistan lost more ground than gained and more importantly Pakistan army did not achieve what was planned. War also imposed a huge burden on Pakistan's economy. It took a sever decline after witnessing some progress earlier.

The war also created a tense state of affairs between the two neighbors and both countries increased their defense budgets. Pakistan's spending on defense reached its height as Pakistan was spending 70% of its budget on defense needs in 1973. This extra burden brought negative impact on Pakistan's social and economic progress.

Another negative consequence of the war was the growing resentment against the Pakistani government in East Pakistan. Bengali leaders accused the government for not providing adequate security for East Pakistan during the war even though large sums of money were taken from the east to finance the war.

Yehya Khan

After the war, Genral Ayub Khan handed over the power to General Yehya Khan violating the constitution instead of holding general elections. General Yehya Khan was a butcher in his nature and because of his incompetence Pakistan faced the greatest loss in its history.

After the 1965 war, a strong resistance against military dictatorship and exploitation of Bengalis had started and Yehya Khan used his dictatorial method to solve political problems. Under the orders of Yehya Khan, Pakistan army acted in fascist ways against it won people and committed worst crimes in East Pakistan.

To control the voices of protestors, the fascist army performed genocide on its own land. With American Support and military aid, Pakistan Army butchered three million Bengalis and raped Bengali women in 1971 only because Bengali leaders were asking for provincial autonomy and an end to exploitation of the people of East Pakistan.

That is the Army way to handle political problems. That is the policy of every dictator to slaughter everyone who dares to speak against dictatorship. Every dictatorship in the world practices the same policy. But Pakistan Army is unique in this matter that Pakistani soldiers killed their own people. They did not spare anyone. They massacred innocent unarmed citizens in colleges, schools, roads and even in mosques.

Atrocities by Pakistani soldiers in East Pakistan shocked the world and conscientious people from around the world condemned crimes of Pakistan Army. Genocide in East Pakistan and human rights crimes led to another war with India in 1971. As a consequence of this war and atrocities of Pakistani soldiers, Pakistan had to loose a large part of its territory which became an independent state, called Bangladesh today.

War of 1971

To control the protests against exploitation and dictatorship in East Pakistan, in March 1971, Pakistani Army started a planned genocide in East Pakistan called 'Operation Searchlight' to curb Bengali nationalist movement. This operation ended in December 1971 and resulted in deaths of three million Bengali people. Indian Government at this time expressed full support for the people of East Pakistan. America was providing full support and military aid to fascist Pakistani soldiers. Indian government launched a successful diplomatic campaign against Pakistani military's crime on a grand scale.

To cover their embarrassment in international forums, Pakistan's military rulers launched an offensive air strikes on north-western Indian border. However, the Indians had anticipated such a move and the raid was not successful. The Indian Air Force launched a counter-attack and quickly achieved air superiority. Pakistan Army counter-attacked India in the West in an attempt to capture territory which might have been used to bargain for territory they expected to lose in the east. The land battle in the West was crucial for any hope of preserving a united Pakistan. The Indian Army quickly responded to the Pakistan Army's movements in the west and made some initial gains, including capturing around 5,500 sq miles of Pakistan territory.

At sea, the Indian Navy proved its superiority by the success of Operation Trident, the name given to the attack on Karachi's port. It also resulted in the destruction of 2 destroyers and one minesweeper, and was followed by the successful Operation Python. In every field, Pakistan Army faced heavy losses. The war ended in a crushing defeat for Pakistan military in just a fortnight. Pakistan's general Niazi, who was titled as 'Tiger Niazi' for killing innocent un-armed civilians appealed for a cease-fire and surrendered in extremely shameful manner. As a result, East Pakistan became Bangladesh. Pakistan lost a half of its navy, a quarter of it Air-Force and a third of its army. India captured 93000 Pakistani soldiers as prisoners of war. India wanted to put them on trials for their war crimes in East Pakistan but eventually released them as a gesture of reconciliation.

After this shameful defeat, General Yehya Khan resigned and handed over power to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, an elected leader and thus democracy started being restored eventually. It was against the Interest of foreign policy of US, who had spent a huge amount in Pakistan Army. Bhutto's policies were leaning towards Soviet Union while US has established a fascist terrorist arm in the form of Pakistan Army. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto remained in power from 1971 to 1977.

Zia-ul-Haq

In July 1977 the military, led by General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, staged a coup. Zia removed Bhutto from power, held him in detention and later persecuted and hanged him. Zia pledged that new elections would be held in 90 days. He kept postponing the elections and eventually took all power in his hand. He ruled the country for 11 years that is the longest period in Pakistan's history till date. General Zia imposed Martial Law in 1977 and assumed the post of president in 1978. He secured his position by a rigged referendum in 1984 and in 1985 he eased Martial Law and announced non-partisan election. Zia handpicked a dummy Prime Minister to show the world that he is restoring democracy. Muhammad Khan Junejo who could not breath without the Generalâ€™s permission was sacked in 1988.

Ziaâ€™s period is not only longest but darkest too as during this time, historical places were turned into prisons for those who raised voice against military dictatorship and it became a routine to arrest, punish and persecute intellectuals who dared to speak. This period was full of brutality, suppression and fear. A number of intellectuals fled from Pakistan and many were sent to specially set up torture cells. He imposed his policies in the name of Islamization to get support from religious schools. This Islamization was directly imported from Washington and was based on violence for serving American interest in the name of Islam and Jihad in Afghanistan. Results of his Islamization are clearer after nine years.

General Zia was an actual employee of US. After holding the power, he started a proxy war on the orders from his US masters against Soviet Union. He proved himself as the most reliable instrument for his imperialist masters. In his period, Pakistan was flooded with military aids from US. Zia was performing as a middleman between US and tribesman of Afghanistan who were fighting against Soviet Union. General Zia did everything to serve his Washington-based masters from training of Afghan fighters to sending Pakistanis to Afghan war. In his period, religious schools became training camps for militants. Whole country was flooded with arms and ammunitions and it resulted in a continuous state of violence in the country that is present to date.

Zia's rule witnessed heightened tensions with neighboring states. He was instrumental in providing military assistance to Mujahideen fighting in Afghanistan against Soviet Occupation and then later diverting them to the Kashmir cause in the late 1980s. During his time as President, Zia was also accused several times by Indian premier Indira Gandhi (and later Rajiv Gandhi) of training Sikh insurgents and sending them to destabilize India.
Under the orders from Washington, Zia provided logistic support to Afghan Mujahedeen and opened Pakistani borders for Afghanistan. A great number of refugees fled into Pakistan and the country faced a huge burden on its economy. Ziaâ€™s era is also remembered as the golden age for drug trafficking. This period was also golden for criminals as all sorts of arms and ammunition became easily available throughout the country.

Ziaâ€™s greed for more and more power led him to introduce theocratic laws without the broader context and without fulfilling other basic requirements for implementing those lasws. It was a show to win support in the name of Islam. He imposed total censorship on media and he introduced a controversial Hudood Ordinance to win support from religious fundamentalist groups. Human rights Organizations have been criticising the implementation of this law and they accuse that this law has been being abused to suppress half of the population of Pakistan. This infamous ordinance was introduced to control adultery but in itself this ordinance protected rapists. Under this ordinance many rape-victims were arrested and sent to prison because they could not produce witness to meet the standard of this ordinance. Zia also banned women from participating in sports activities.

With continuous support of the US, General Zia became the most powerful and cruel ruler of the country. He declared Pakistani constitution as a 'rag of paper'. The person who polluted the soil of Pakistan with drugs, arms and corruption died in an air crash in 1988. Officially his death remains a mystery as no one dares to point a finger towards the actual mastermind behind the plot.
General Zia also militarized the bureaucracy systematically. By the order of his government, 5% of all new posts in the higher civil service were to be filled by army officers who, consequently, occupied important civilian positions. Successive democratically elected governments did not rescind this order due to the power wielded by Pakistan Army. Under Pakistan's current military government, militarizing the bureaucracy is again pursued.

Fragile Democracy

After the death of General Zia-ul-Haq, Ghulam Ishaq Khan became caretaker president of Pakistan and he held elections in the country to restore democracy. Benazir Bhutto, daughter of Zufiqar Ali Bhuto, former Prime Minister who was persecuted by Zia-ul-Haq won with heavy majority and her victory proved how much hatred Zia-ul-Haq had earned. Military supported president Ghulam Ishaq Khan dissolved National Assembly just after twenty months and forced new elections. In fact fascist military Generals could not tolerate the popularity of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who was still alive in the hearts of people of Pakistan even after an 11 years long period of suppression.

In upcoming elections of 1990, Nawaz Shareef became Prime Minister. Elections of 1990 were fully controlled by Military and Nawaz Shareef was actually a hand-picked Prime Minister. But Nawaz Shareef soon demanded for restoration for real democracy that could never be tolerated by Generals. Nawaz Shareef's started standing against Army mafia. However, Ghulam Ishaq Khan was still president of Pakistan and was acting as a front-man of the military Generals. He removed Nawaz and dissolved National Assembly.

In the 1993 elections, the Generals did not have any dummy to appoint and Benazir Bhutto won with a heavy majority again. This time Benazir came in office with more power and she removed Ghulam Ishaq Khan from office. In 1996 she was removed from office again on the charges of corruption and bad governance. This time again Nawaz Shareef who had become a national level leader by now won with such a huge majority and popularity that the Generals felt threatened. Nawaz Shareef had now understood politics of the fascist Generals and he wanted to control their games.

Nawaz Shareef had been doing his best to restore democracy in the country and in his second tenure he secured extreme popularity in the country. He was the second leader in Pakistan who became so popular in a short period after Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Nawaz Shareef proved himself a sensible leader and he did not give any chance to US to support Pakistan Military to destabilize democracy.

Kargil War

In 1999, Generals played another nasty game to weaken democracy in the country. At this time Nawaz Shareef was working for the peace with Indian Government which could jeopardize the status quo which the military wanted to maintain. The Generals found it a golden opportunity and launched a plan to infiltrate Kashmir. They started an operation in Kargil with the help of some fundamentalist militant organizations. The situation was embarrassing for Nawaz Shareef. He came under pressure from the whole world especially from the USA. In furious state, Nawaz Shareef used his constitutional power and dismissed General Parvez Musharraf who was the mastermind behind Kargil operation.

Kargil war started after military operation code named Operation Badar in 1999. In the beginning Pakistan Army supported intruders and provided logistic support. As a result, they captured Indian Positions at a time when Indian forces had left positions due to cold weather. Due to extreme weather, it was a common practice in both militaries to leave such positions in winter and re-occupy them in spring. Pakistani paramilitary forces took control of Indian positions but Indian forces responded and forced them back to the line of control.

Pakistan Military tried to capture Kargil posts with the help of intruders but Indian forces responded with mobilization of 20,000 troops to the line of control. Indian troops soon secured most of their territories and India also launched a diplomatic campaigned on international level that had been successful and this rogue misadventure by a fascist Army brought embarrassment to the nation. International Media titled Pakistan Army as 'The Rogue Army' for its coward act. Pakistan has been criticized for the criminal activities of its Military and â€œinternational communityâ€ forced Pakistan to withdraw its troops from Kargil.

Pakistan faced the loss of approximately 4000 troops and extreme damage to the morale of Military. As a result of this fascist act of violating the Line of Control by Pakistan Army, Pakistan faced the possibility of isolation and Pakistan's economy tumbled. Image of Pakistan shattered in international community. The ongoing peace process with India stopped. Prime Minister who was under pressure from international community tried to constitute a committee to investigate. Nawaz Shareef wanted to bring Parvez Musharaf under charge for such irresponsible action.

Tension between Prime Minister and Army chief arose on the issue of investigation. the Army chief, according to the traditions of Generals, started acting arrogantly. Army Chief, who was responsible for the loss, was afraid of investigations and under such fears he started ignoring constitutional orders from Prime Minister. He challenged the writ of democratic government and as a result, Nawaz Shareef issued the orders of dismissal of Army Chief to maintain the writ of parliament.

General Pervez Musharraf

As it had been the policy of Fascist Generals to never perform their constitutional duty and accept orders from Federal Government, General Musharraf refused to accept orders and captured the capital in a military coup in 1999. Generals once again murdered the democracy. General Musharraf arrested the elected Prime Minister and later exiled him. Musharraf charged Nawaz Shareef with accusations of corruption and bad governance.

Such charges of corruptions and bad governance always had been a lame excuse for military coups. Politicians all over the world are charged with such accusations but they do not solve such problems with military coups. It is only Pakistan's fascist army that uses its power to destabilize democracy and over-throw civilian government. It is evident that generals of Pakistan are more corrupt than politicians. Their only problem is that they cannot let democracy be strengthened.

General Parvez Musharraf hijacked power and illegally held the office of president. of Pakistan. He followed the footsteps of his predecessor General Zia-ul-Haq and used every dictatorial method to sabotage democratic process in the country. He used every brutal tactic to control voices of protest. He crossed every limit in serving his US master in order to remain in power. He is the first dictator of Pakistan who follows every command from Washington keeping aside national integrity.

General Parvez Musharraf started Military operation in his own land to control protests against his dictatorship and repeated the story of East Pakistan. Pakistan Army started brutal operations in Waziristan and Balochistan to control the people who are demanding their basic rights. General Musharraf recently killed a nationalist leader from Balochistan, Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti who had been a strong voice against Military dictatorship and the due rights of his people. Conditions in Balochistan are being worsened and the exploited people are feeling insecure and frightened.

Under the Musharraf rule, the whole country has become a cantonment. Military is dominating the life in Pakistan. Fascist Army has captured every civil institution including schools, universities, factories, hospitals, public offices and public utility services. Pakistan Army has grabbed a large area of state owned land and it is being allotted to Military officers. They are looting all resources of the nation. Musharraf government is also selling profitable national assets at throw-away prices and getting huge kickbacks. Such corruption cases have been exposed before the Supreme Court but Musharraf is misusing his power and using every dictatorial method to control protests against his corruptions.

People of Pakistan are under a continuous state of fear under Musharraf rule. People are afraid to speak as they have seen how Military rulers killed Nawab Bugti for raising voice against dictatorship. Even international media is silent because Musharraf is being supported by his Washington based masters. Price for the fascist acts of Generals is being paid by common Pakistanis who are suffering poverty and humility.

General Mushararf, following the footsteps of his predecessor generals, forced censorship on media. Government banned websites and newspaper in Balochistan who were reporting the atrocities of Pakistan Army in Balochistan. At some occasions, the government also blocked a reputable news resource 'South Asia tribune' that published the reports of corruption of Generals. They have also blocked some other websites that publish reports on military operation in Balochistan.

Many journalists and activists were kidnapped by agencies and a large number of citizens have disappeared in the past few years. Reporters Sans Frontiers, International Organization of journalists ranked Pakistan as No. 12 in worldâ€™s most restricted press in 2006 because of Musharrafâ€™s continuous attacks on the freedom of press.

More recently Pakistan Army raided a religious school in NWFP, killing more than 83 students, accusing them of terrorism. Most of these students were under 14 years of age and no evidence of any weapon or suspicious activity was found. Government also banned journalist to enter in the premises of bombed school. This act of Mushararf is extra-judicial murder and human rights organizations condemned Musharraf regime for such operation without investigation.

International Fund for Peace declared Pakistan a failed state in 2006 because of the policies of General Musharraf. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have condemned the criminal policies of the fascist General. Transparency International ranked his government as most corrupt in the history of Pakistan. But he is not willing to leave the office, ignoring protests going on in the country, condemnation worldwide and worsening situations of homeland security, national economy and human rights.

Land of Pakistan has been suffering the rule of these ambitious and opportunist military Generals denying people their right to self-determination and dancing at the tunes from Washington and London. It is the responsibility of conscientious people from around the world to raise voice against this cruel dictatorship and show support and solidarity with the people of Pakistan who had been a victim of cruelty of its Fascist Army sine 1952.

19 September 2001, General Pervaiz Musharraf went on TV to inform the people of Pakistan that their country would be standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States in its bombardment of Afghanistan. Visibly pale, blinking and sweating, he looked like a man who had just signed his own death warrant.

The installation of the Taliban regime in Kabul had been the Pakistan Armyâ€™s only foreign-policy success. In 1978, the US had famously turned to the countryâ€™s military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq when it needed a proxy to manage its jihad against the radical pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan. In what followed, the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence became an army within an army, with much of its budget supplied directly from Washington. It was the ISI that supervised the Talibanâ€™s sweep to power during Benazir Bhuttoâ€™s premiership of the mid-nineties; that controlled the infiltration of skilled saboteurs and assassins into Indian-held Kashmir; and that maintained a direct connexion with Osama bin Laden. Ziaâ€™s successors could congratulate themselves that their new province in the north-west almost made up for the defection of Bangladesh in 1971.

Now it was time to unravel the gains of the victory: the Taliban protectorate had to be dismantled and bin Laden captured, â€˜dead or aliveâ€™. But having played such a frontline role in installing fundamentalism in Afghanistan, would the Pakistan Army and the ISI accept the reverse command from their foreign masters, and put themselves in the forefront of the brutal attempt to root it out? Musharraf was clearly nervous but the US Defence Intelligence Agency had not erred. In the final analysis, Pakistanâ€™s generals have always remained loyal to the institution that produced themâ€”and to its international backersâ€”rather than to abstract ideas like democracy, Islam or even Pakistan.

The countryâ€™s fifty-five year history has been a series of lengthy duels between general and politician, with civil servants acting as seconds for both sides. Statistics reveal the winner: while elected representatives have run the country for fifteen years, and unaccountable bureaucrats and their tame front men for eleven, the Army has been in power for twenty-nineâ€”leading some to suggest that the green-and-white national flag might be re-coloured khaki. [1] It is a dismal record, but the Pakistan high command has never tolerated interference from civilian politicians for too long. The last elected leader to believe he had the Army firmly under his control, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, had to be disabused of the notion. In 1977, on the orders of General Ziaâ€”an erstwhile favourite whom Bhutto had promoted over the heads of five, more deserving, superior officersâ€”the prime minister was removed from power and hanged two years later. [2]

After Ziaâ€™s sudden death in 1988, power alternated between Benazir Bhuttoâ€™s Pakistan Peopleâ€™s Party (1988â€“90; 1993â€“96) and Nawaz Sharifâ€™s Muslim League (1990â€“93; 1997â€“99). By 1998 it looked as if Nawaz Sharifâ€”probably the countryâ€™s most venal politicianâ€”was forgetting the lessons of Bhuttoâ€™s fall. The rickety economy was facing collapse as the Southeast Asian financial crisis swept the region, exacerbated by US sanctions imposed after the 1998 Indo-Pak nuclear tests (Clinton later intervened to soften these on the grounds of US national-security interests). The Chief of Army Staff, General Karamat, called for a National Security Council to be set up to take charge of the situation, with the Army playing a major role. Nawaz Sharif sacked him in October 1998 and installed Musharraf as COAS instead.

Six months later, under Musharrafâ€™s command, the Pakistan Army launched its Kargil offensive, capturing strategic heights in Indian-held Kashmir. Nawaz Sharif came under immediate US pressure and, in July 1999, ordered the troops to withdrawâ€”snatching diplomatic defeat from the jaws of military victory, in the eyes of the high command. Nawaz Sharif, clearly counting on Washingtonâ€™s support, tried to instigate moves against Musharraf within the Army, while complaining in public that he had not been consulted about the Kargil move. The following October, while Musharraf was on a visit to Sri Lanka, Pakistan TV announced that the COAS had been sacked. Flying home, his plane was denied permission to land. Either while circling Pakistan airspace with dwindling fuel supplies, or after his final touch-down, Musharraf gave the order for Nawaz Sharif to be put under arrest. Announcing that he had been â€˜compelled to act, to prevent the further destabilization of the militaryâ€™, Musharraf suspended parliament and the constitution, appointed himself the countryâ€™s â€˜Chief Executiveâ€™ and established a governing National Security Council. (The Clinton administration ensured a smoother fate for Nawaz Sharif than Bhutto had endured, whisking him out of prison to enjoy a comfortable exile in Saudi Arabia.)

Liberal applause
Initially, there was some rejoicing both at home and abroad at the Pakistan Armyâ€™s fourth coup in as many decades. To the popular delight at getting rid of Nawaz Sharif was added the innovation of a military take-over in the face of apparent White House displeasure. This, coupled with the pseudo-modernist rhetoric of the new ruler, encouraged a wave of amnesia. It was as if the institution that had dominated the countryâ€™s political life for so many decades had ceased to existâ€”or undergone a miraculous transformation. Liberal pundits in New York and Lahore lost their bearings, while in the London Review of Books Anatol Lieven decribed Musharrafâ€™s administration as being â€˜the most progressive Pakistan has had in a generationâ€™. [3] The bulk of the citizens were more scepticalâ€”indifferent to the fate of their politicians, and with few illusions as to the character or role of the Army.

Like his uniformed predecessors, Musharraf immediately promised to end corruption, reform the countryside, tax the middle-classes, eradicate poverty, educate the poor and restore real democracy. The Pakistani road to absolutism is always paved with such intentions. Why were so many liberal commentators deceived? Partially it was sheer desperation. In the face of the appalling performance of elected politicians during the nineties, they were ready to grasp at straws. They were also taken in by Musharrafâ€™s rhetoric, replete with admiring references to Kemal AtatÃ¼rk, and by his relatively untypical socio-cultural background. Unlike most of the military high command, Musharraf was not of Punjabi stock. He had no links with the traditional landed elite that has dominated the country, nor was he on the payroll of a heroin millionaire or close to some tainted industrialist. His family, educated and secular, had left Uttar Pradesh during the Partition of 1947 to find shelter in the Land of the Pure. After her sonâ€™s rise to fame, his mother had casually revealed in the course of a newspaper interview that, in the fifties, she had been greatly influenced by progressive intellectuals such as Sajjad Zaheer and Sibte Hassan. [4] She never said that her views had been genetically transmitted to her boy, but desperate people will put their hopes in anything.

Within a few months of Musharrafâ€™s seizure of power, however, there was already a strong indication that nothing substantial would change. The Chief Executive had appointed a friend and colleague, General Amjad, as head of the National Accountability Bureau, charged with rooting out and punishing corrupt officials, politicians and businessmen. Amjad was one of the few senior officers in the Army rumoured to have unpolluted hands. His reputation for â€˜playing by the rulesâ€™ had made him a maverick, even as a junior officer. One story has it that he refused to allow a general to borrow the mess silver for a private dinner party, despite insistent requests. His colleagues, taken aback at his stuffiness, laughed at him in public while privately according him some grudging respect.

Musharrafâ€™s decision to put him in charge of the NAB had potentially serious consequences. Within a fortnight, Amjad had hired the services of a reputable non-establishment American lawyer, William Pepper, to track down the money spirited abroad by Benazir Bhutto and husband Asif Zardari. Simultaneously, Amjad ordered the arrest of industrialists who had borrowed money from the banks and failed to pay even the interest on it. A list of politicians who had done the same was published in every newspaper. The naming and shaming was punishing psychologically but was insufficient to deal with the cancer. Amjad reportedly told the Chief Executive that, to tackle the problem seriously, it would be necessary to create at least one completely clean institution in the country; only then would civil servants and politicians take notice. But any thorough purge of the Augean stables would have required the arrest of dozens of serving and former generals, admirals and air marshals, long rewarded for services to their country by the chance to engage in large-scale corruption. Musharaf naturally baulked at any such prospect, fearing it would divide and demoralize the top brass and could lead to a break-down in discipline. Once discipline went, the Pakistani military risked becoming little different from a Middle-Eastern or Latin American army where any Johnny, regardless of rank, thought he could seize power. Amjad was quietly shifted sideways, first as a Corps Commander and then as head of the Fauji Foundation, a military honey-pot where his own scruples will certainly be tested. The imprisoned capitalists were released, the shamed politicians heaved a collective sigh of relief and it was, in every sense of the phrase, back to business as usual.

A listing economy
If the removal of Amjad had pleased local capitalism, the appointment of New York banker Shaukat Aziz as Finance Minister endeared Musharraf to the IMF. Pakistanâ€™s economy has long been crippled by exorbitant defence expenditure which, amplified by inadequate tax revenues, has led to sky-rocketing debt-service costs. By 2001, debt and defence amounted to two-thirds of public spendingâ€”257bn rupees ($4.2bn) and 149.6bn rupees ($2.5bn) respectively, compared to total tax revenues of 414.2bn rupees ($6.9bn). In a country with one of the worst public education systems in Asiaâ€”70 per cent of women, and 41 per cent of men, are officially classified as illiterateâ€”and with health care virtually non-existent for over half the population, a mere 105.1bn rupees ($1.75bn) was left for overall development.

Throughout the nineties, the IMF had scolded civilian governments for failing to keep their restructuring promises. Musharrafâ€™s regime, by contrast, won admiring praise from 1999 onwards for sticking to IMF guidelines â€˜despite the hardships imposed on the public by austerity measuresâ€™. [5] Impoverishment and desperation in the burgeoning city slums and the countrysideâ€”still home to 67.5 per cent of the populationâ€”were exacerbated further. Some 56 million Pakistanis, nearly 40 per cent of the population, now live below the poverty line; the number has increased by 15 million since Musharraf seized power. Of Pakistanâ€™s four provinces the Punjab, with around 60 per cent of the population, has continued to dominate economically and politically, with Punjabis filling the upper echelons of the Army and bureaucracy and channelling what development there is to local projects. Sind, with 23 per cent of the population, and Baluchistan (5 per cent) remain starved of funds, water and power supplies, while the North West Frontierâ€™s fortunes have been increasingly tied to the heroin economy.

The problem is structural. The economy rests on a narrow production base, heavily dependent on the fallible cotton crop and the low-value-added textile industry; irrigation supplies are deficient, and soil erosion and salinity widespread. More damaging still are the crippling social relations in the countryside. Low productivity in agriculture can only be reversed through the implementation of serious land reforms, but the alliance between khaki state and local landlords makes this virtually impossible. As a recent Economist Intelligence Unit report on Pakistan noted:

Change is hindered not least because the status quo suits the wealthy landowners who dominate the sector, as well as federal and provincial parliaments. Large landowners own 40 per cent of the arable land and control most of the irrigation system. Yet assessments by independent agencies, including the World Bank, show them to be less productive than smallholders. They are also poor taxpayers, heavy borrowers and bad debtors. [6]
The weak economy has been further skewed for decades now by Pakistanâ€™s vast military apparatus. For â€˜security reasonsâ€™, its costs are never itemized in official statements: a single line records the overall sum. In Pakistan, the power of any elected body to probe into military affairs has always been strictly curtailed. The citizenry remains unaware of how the annual $2.5bn is distributed between the Army (550,000-strong, with two-thousand-plus tanks and two armoured divisions); the Air Force (ten fighter squadrons of forty combat planes each, as well as French and US-made missile systems); and the Navy (ten submarines, eight frigates); let alone what is spent on nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Military Keynesianism
This lack of transparency is extended to the maze of loss-making business enterprises run by the Army. The oldest of these is the Fauji Foundation, established as a charity for retired military personnel in 1889. It has since become a giant conglomerate in its own right with controlling shares in sugar mills, energy, fertilizer, cereals, cement and other industriesâ€”combined assets worth 9.8bn rupees. The Army Welfare Trust, set up in 1977 under General Ziaâ€™s dictatorship, controls real estate, rice mills, stud farms, pharmaceutical industries, travel agencies, fish farms, six different housing schemes, insurance companies, an aviation outfit and the highly accommodating Askari Commercial Bank, many of whose senior functionaries had earlier served at the discredited Bank of Credit and Commerce International; the AWTâ€™s assets have been valued at 17bn rupees. The Air Force and Navy chiefs also have their own troughs: the Shaheen and Bahria Foundations.

Many of these enterprises have been engaged in corruption, although scandals usually erupt only when civilian businessmen have become too greedy in exploiting the opportunities they offer, or where the fall of a government has exposed its shady deals. Benazir Bhuttoâ€™s spouse Asif Zardari was implicated, via an intermediary, in short-changing the Air Forceâ€™s Shaheen Foundation in a dubious media venture. In another case, it emerged that a private businessman had bribed senior naval personnel in the process of defrauding the Bahria Foundation over a land-development deal. A lawyer petitioned the Supreme Court to outlaw all use of Army, Navy and Air Force insignia in private enterprise. He demonstrated how the foundations were contravening the Companies Ordinance of 1984, accused them and their partners of collusion and corruption, and pleaded with the Court to outlaw all commercial activities by the armed services. Unable to contest his arguments, the judges dismissed the case on a technicalityâ€”thereby revealing their own subordination to the colour khaki.

Contrary to the widely propagated myth that the Army can at least run things efficiently (â€˜probably the only successful modern institution Pakistan possessesâ€™, according to an admirer in the London Review of Books), a detailed investigation by Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha has recently revealed that most of these businesses are run at a loss, with the generals siphoning off funds from the bloated defence budget to make up the difference. [7] The military are also entirely innocent of modern accounting systems: their books tend to ignore such factors as personnel and utilities costs, and in any case government auditors are warned not to examine them too closely. Meanwhile, their stranglehold over many areas of the economy stifles normal development. In the construction and transport sectors especially, the ability of Army-run companies such as the National Logistics Cell and the Frontier Works Organization to monopolize government contracts, whether under civilian or military regimes, forces smaller companies out of business.

Musharrafâ€™s war on terror
By 2001, as a result of skewed spending, stagnating agricultural and industrial sectors and grotesque military mismanagement, the country was groaning under a burden of a $27bn external public debt. Then came September 11. Mercifully for Washington, the Army was already in power in Pakistan. The Pentagon and the CIA were spared the time and energy needed to organize a new military coup. At such a moment of tension, institutional continuity must have been reassuring. [8] As the B52s roared into the newly won bases in Kyrgyzstan, and secret sites along the Baluchistan border were reactivated for Special Service use, the IMF approved a three-year poverty-reduction loan of $1.3bn and helped reschedule over $12bn in debtâ€”resulting in massive budgetary relief for Pakistan, and allowing its State Bank to build unprecedented foreign-exchange reserves (some $7bn by July 2002). By this time, the IMF had also disbursed soft loans totalling around $400m.

Overnight, Musharraf had become halal in the West and was being fÃªted by Bush and Blair in the same venues in which Reagan and Thatcher had welcomed Zia and Osamaâ€™s friends. For its part, the Army high command was united in the view that the born-again alliance with Washington was a severe blow against the Indian enemy. Pakistanâ€™s civilian elite, too, was in jubilant mood. Now at least they were no longer pariahs. A new imperial war, with their very own Army as the principal proxy and the whole country as a base of operations, meant they were needed once again. The more liberal wing of the elite dreamt of a permanent Pentagonâ€“Musharraf axis that would destroy the hold of Pakistanâ€™s dreaded Islamists forever. Overlooking how many times their illusions had been betrayed in the past, its representatives now travelled to Washington to plead that the region never be left unprotected again. For their part, emissaries from the disgraced politicians Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto became familiar if pathetic figures at Foggy Bottom, pleading endlessly with junior functionaries of the State Department not to trust the Army.

The exact role of the ISI during this period remains unclear. In his 19 September broadcast, Musharraf had hinted that his loyalty to Washingtonâ€™s war on terror would be rewarded not just with cash but with an American wink at Pakistanâ€™s nuclear and Kashmiri aspirationsâ€”â€˜our critical concernsâ€™, as he put it. [9] As early as November 2001, India was protesting at increased Pakistani-backed infiltration into Kashmir. On 13 December, armed gunmen allegedly linked to the ISI-funded Jaish-e-Mohammad attacked the Indian parliament building in Delhi, killing nine people. With tension rapidly escalating, the two countries mobilized close to a million troops along their common borderâ€”a mass militarization that served retrograde political interests on both sides.

Khaki democracy
By this stage, Musharrafâ€™s own popularity had begun to list asymmetrically: the more he was appreciated by the State Department the less inclined he felt to undertake any serious measures at homeâ€”leave alone implementing the â€˜true democracyâ€™ he had promised. Instead, like Generals Ayub and Zia before him, the Chief Executive now attempted to make himself impregnable. Temporarily discarding his uniform, he dressed up in native gear, complete with a particularly stupid turban, and launched his political career at a â€˜publicâ€™ rally, consisting of peasant-serfs bussed into a large field by a friendly landlord in Sind. The referendum is a time-honoured weapon of dictators in search of legitimacy; Musharrafâ€™s decision to rig the April 2002 plebiscite in his favour disillusioned even his most ardent liberal supporters. The majority of the electorate stayed at home while government employees, soldiers and serfs trooped to the polls and transformed the CE into the countryâ€™s elected President.

The next step was equally predictable. The one thing every dictator needs in order to provide his regime with a civilian faÃ§ade is a political party. Not a problem, Musharrafâ€™s sycophants assured him: a handy instrument could easily be fashioned from the debris of the past. Like an out-of-work courtesan, the Muslim Leagueâ€”the countryâ€™s foundational partyâ€”was given a shower, dusted with powder and provided with a new wig, before being displayed to the growing queue of potential suitors. Ayubâ€™s pet name for his party was the Convention Muslim League; Zia preferred the Pakistan Muslim League, and allowed the Sharif family to manage it on his behalf. Musharraf, having ditched the Sharifs, needed a new name. A timeserver suggested the Quaid-i-Azam Muslim League and so it came about that this old-new entity entered the lists as the Generalâ€™s Party, in the Generalâ€™s Election of October 2002. [10] Its personnel were hardly unfamiliar, consisting of bandwagon careerists of every stripe. In the countryside, these were still the old landed gentry, eager to please the new ruler; in the towns, local notables who had accrued vast sums of money, often through illegal means, and become procurers of power and influence. Where in the past a father or uncle had supported Ayub or Zia, now the son or son-in-law was eager to act as a prop for Musharraf. In the face of mass apathy the bureaucracy, past masters in the art of electoral manipulation, set about ensuring the required outcome.

The results of the October election were much closer than anticipated. Despite the low turnoutâ€”under 20 per cent, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistanâ€”and skilful ballot-rigging, the official Muslim League (Q) failed to secure an overall majority in the National Assembly, winning 115 seats out of 324, mainly in its traditional bastion of the Punjab. Benazir Bhuttoâ€™s Pakistan Peopleâ€™s Party secured eighty seatsâ€”again, largely in their Sindhi heartlandâ€”and the rump of the Muslim League that had remained loyal to Nawaz Sharif took nineteen. It was the Islamists who scored a really big hit. With 66 seats, their united front Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMAâ€”Unified Action Conference) gained the highest ever complement that Islamist parliamentarians had ever achieved in the history of this Islamic Republic, sweeping the Pashto-speaking regions along the Afghan border. Their colourful turbans and long beards literally changed the complexion of the National Assembly. True, they were helped by the first-past-the-post system inherited from the mother of parliaments; but Thatcher and Blair had both benefited from this without too many complaints. The MMA also emerged as the largest political force at provincial level in the North West Frontier, and a dominant influence in Baluchistan: the provincial Governments in Peshawar and Quetta are currently presided over by Islamist Chief Ministers.

Power brokers acting on Musharrafâ€™s behalf finally managed to confect a federal coalition that would exclude the MMA. A block of PPP members was detached from the parent organization with the inducement of senior cabinet posts. A Baluch landlord and hockey enthusiast, Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, who had been responsible for the brutal repression of peasants in 1977â€”ten were killed in clashes with the policeâ€”was anointed as Musharrafâ€™s new Prime Minister. Two decades before, Jamali had slaved to achieve the same position under General Zia, but the latter was not keen on hockey and preferred to employ the cricket-loving Nawaz Sharif as his factotum. Given that 70 per cent of Musharrafâ€™s new Cabinet, including Jamali, had featured prominently on General Amjadâ€™s list of corrupt politicians, the widespread public cynicism was hardly a surprise. Far from regenerating democracy, the khaki election has bared the sordid reality of Pakistani politics; a large majority feels both disenfranchised and alienated from those who govern on its behalf.

The election campaign itself had been largely lacklustre, if not totally apolitical. The mainstream parties had no differences on ideological or policy grounds, either on the domestic or the international level. The Peopleâ€™s Party had long abandoned its populism. Benazir Bhutto, wanted in Pakistan on charges of corruption, attempted to rule from her base in Dubai via her chosen proxy, Makhdoom Amin Fahim, a Pir-cum-landlord from Sind. Politician and religious divine rolled into one, Fahim is hardly a social liberal. Uniquely, even for Pakistan, all his four brothers-in-law are the Koran. [11] Like the different Muslim Leagues on offer, the PPP was concerned with power solely as a means to offer patronage and enlarge its clientele.

Maulana Diesel
The Islamist alliance, for its part, had no disagreements with the other parties on the IMF prescriptions for the economyâ€”there is, after all, a neoliberal reading of the Koranâ€”but campaigned vigorously in defence of Islamic laws and against the US presence in the region. There was hardly a day without a newspaper headline highlighting MMA leader Maulana Fazl ur Rehmanâ€™s hostility to the American troops: â€˜Fazl Demands Expulsion of US Commandos from Tribal Areasâ€™, â€˜West Bent on Initiating Civilizations Clash: Fazlâ€™, â€˜Fazl Says Sovereignty Mortgaged to USâ€™, â€˜Fazl Demands Halt to US Army Operationsâ€™, â€˜Fazl Urges US Troops Withdrawalâ€™, â€˜MMA Vows to Block Hunt for al-Qaedaâ€™, etc. [12] Much of this was pure bluster, but it proved helpful electorally. The Maulana himself admitted that it was not religion that won him new support, but his foreign-policy stance. In discussions with Musharraf, he declared his willingness to establish a coalition with himself as prime minister. When the General pointed out that his anti-Americanism posed a serious problem, the cleric is reported to have replied: â€˜Donâ€™t worry about that now. Weâ€™ve worked with the Americans in the past. Make me Prime Minister and Iâ€™ll sort everything out.â€™ The offer was declined.

The MMA is a six-party alliance, with the Jamaat-Ulema-Islamâ€”Party of Islamic Scholarsâ€”and the Jamaat-i-Islami, or Islamist Party, its two main pillars. Both JUI and JI have been active for decades, mainly in the frontier regions of the NWFP and Baluchistan. Traditionally, the JUI considered itself anti-imperialist and was involved in coalition governments with radical secular parties during the seventies, under the leadership of Maulana Mufti Mahmood, Fazlâ€™s father. It had always been hostile to the JIâ€”regarding it as an instrument of the US and Saudi Embassies in Islamabadâ€”and had opposed the military dictatorships of both Ayub and Zia; Mufti Mahmood had attended Peace Conferences in both Moscow and Beijing. His own death came just a few years before the collapse of the Communist world, and his son inherited the party. As a student Fazl had dabbled in poetry, writing verses in both Pashto and Urdu, and publicly declaring that the leftist Faiz Ahmed Faiz was his favourite poet. After his fatherâ€™s death he continued the old manâ€™s policies, working closely with Benazir Bhuttoâ€™s government in the mid-nineties. But whereas the farthest old Mufti had gone was to collect his dollar per diems at international conferences, the son, as befitted the new times, was more market-oriented. In return for his active support for Ms Bhutto he succeeded in procuring a lucrative diesel franchise, which covered large parts of the countryâ€”and, after the Pak-Taliban victory, most of Afghanistan as well; it earned him the sobriquet of Maulana Diesel.

The bearded, rotund Diesel soon became a great favourite of Benazirâ€™s Interior Minister General Naseerullah Babar, architect of the Taliban triumph in Kabul. Fazlâ€™s political, ideological and commercial links with the Taliban leadership always remained strong, enabling him to outflank his local JI rivals, whose pawn Gulbuddin Hekmatyarâ€”much fÃªted by Reagan and Thatcher in the eightiesâ€”had been effectively sidelined by the new student clerics in Kabul. After the US assault on Afghanistan, the bulk of the Taliban melted into the hills along the Pakistani border. There many of the returnees swelled the ranks of the JUI and other Islamist parties, and the JUI took the lead in organizing mass rallies against the â€˜foreign occupiersâ€™. It was Fazl who realized that, given the first-past-the-post system, the Islamists could be wiped out electorally if they remained divided. The Alliance was his initiative and he was duly elected its Secretary-General even though, at 49, he is fifteen years younger than his main coalition rival, Qazi Hussain Ahmed.

Ziaâ€™s orphans
Qazi Hussainâ€™s election as Amir of the Jamaat-i-Islami marked a generational shift in an organization that had remained under the control of its founder Maulana Maudoodi and his deputy, Mian Tufail, since its origin in 1941. [13] Where the JUI was populist, had support in the villages and collaborated with the Left, the JI was built on the Leninist-cadre model. Its recruits were literate and carefully vetted, most of them students from urban petty-bourgeois backgrounds. Many had been tested in the campus struggles of the sixties and seventies. During the semi-insurrection of 1968â€“69 that had toppled the Ayub dictatorship, the Left had dominated the action committees that led the fight. To support the JI in those days required a real commitment to the cause. Its motto: religion is our politics and politics our religion.

Qazi Hussain, a leader of the JI student faction at Islamia College in Peshawar, spent his formative years in battlesâ€”some of them physicalâ€”against the Left. He joined the parent body in 1970, when the JIâ€™s branch in East Pakistan collaborated fully with the Army in its attempt to destroy the Bengali nation. Their cadres in Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet compiled lists of â€˜undesirablesâ€™ for military intelligence, which were then used to eliminate the opposition. â€˜Chairman Mao supports us, not youâ€™, was a taunt they regularly hurled at the Bengali Left of the time. China and the US both supported the Pakistan Armyâ€™s brutal assault on its own people, aimed at nullifying the dramatic 1970 election victory by the Bengali-nationalist Awami League. The Armyâ€™s onslaught backfired badly. Bangladesh is the direct outcome of a military refusal to recognize the will of the electorate. In the circumstances, the Armyâ€™s self-image as the only institution that holds the country together is somewhat grotesque.

The JIâ€™s role in the 1971 break up of Pakistan had the effect of drawing it closer to the intelligence apparatuses of the rump state. When Zia seized power six years later and joined the US jihad in Afghanistan, the JI became the main ideological prop of the military regime. Qazi Hussain defended the new turn; his skills were noted and he began his rise through the JI apparatus. A former geography lecturer, he now abandoned the low-paid chores of the academy to open a Popular Medical Store in Peshawarâ€™s Soekarno Square. The shop was not just an informal meeting place for local JI cadres but a successful commercial operation, soon to be joined by a Popular Medical Laboratory and a Popular X-Ray Clinic. [14] It now became clear that he also aspired to a more popular Jamaat-i-Islami. Hussein knew that it was not easy for a vanguard party that had always prided itself on its elite character to re-brand and market itself in a more accessible style; in politics, as in business, there is always an element of risk when you decide to expand. His decision to join the 2002 Islamist alliance must have been as carefully calculated as the trim of his pure-white regulation beard (in marked contrast to the wilder salt-and-pepper variety sported by Maulana Diesel).

A rhetorical shift?
Incapable of serious opposition to either Musharraf or his Washington backers, the MMA concentrates its fire against women. It has declared its intention to ban cable-TV channels and co-education, and to institute the shariâ€˜a in the provinces under its control. Given the disaster that befell a more extreme version of this programme in Afghanistan, this could be mere rhetoric designed to keep their followers inebriated while embarrassing the occupant of Presidentâ€™s House. The MMAâ€™s triumph may or may not have been aided by some independent campaigning from sections of the ISI but it has undoubtedly put pressure on the regime to release more of the Islamist militants imprisoned when Musharraf joined the â€˜war on terrorâ€™; some of the diehard Sunni terrorists responsible for appalling atrocities against minority Shia and Christian communities had already been freed before the election.

More striking was the MMAâ€™s success, in November 2002, in dragooning virtually the entire National Assemblyâ€”there were two exceptionsâ€”to observe a minuteâ€™s silence in memory of the â€˜martyred Aimal Kansiâ€™, whose body had been returned to Pakistan after his execution in a US Federal penitentiary for the murder of two CIA officials in Langley, Virginia in 1993. [15] Earlier, some 70,000 people had attended Kansiâ€™s funeral prayers in Quetta, also organized by the MMA. Why did the National Assembly agree to mourn him? Pakistan has not outlawed capital punishment, so it could hardly be seen as a liberal protest. The simple answer is that the MMAâ€™s success has worried its opponents and they are hoping to defeat the Islamists on their own ground. Bhutto pÃ¨re made a similar error in the seventies and paid the price.

Rural intifada
A striking example of the political partiesâ€™ unwillingness to defend even the most elementary needs of the population can be seen in their reaction to the two-year struggle that has been waged by tenants working on state farms leased to the Army. Rarely has an event spotlighted the bankruptcy of traditional politics in Pakistan so vividly. The British colonial administration had first leased what were then known as â€˜Crown landsâ€™ in 1908, setting up military farms to produce subsidized grain and dairy products for the British Indian Army. After Partition, management of the farmsâ€”scattered around Lahore, Okara, Sahiwal, Khanewal, Sargodha and Multan, mainly in the Southern Punjabâ€”passed to the Ministry of Defence and the provincial government. The Army controlled 26,274 acres, the remaining 32,000 acres were leased to the Punjab Seed Corporation. The tenant families who work the farms are the direct descendants of those first taken there in 1908. Forty per cent of them are Christians: mosques and churches function side by side. The religious parties have failed miserably in these regions and the peasants have, since the seventies, tended to vote for the Peopleâ€™s Party. No longer.

The de facto merger of Army and state on virtually every level has meant that the generals act here as a collective landlord, the largest in the country, determining the living conditions of just under a million tenants. The functionaries of the khaki state regularly bullied and cheated their tenants: they were denied permission to build brick homes; the women were molested; and management approval had to be obtainedâ€”and paid forâ€”to get electrification for the villages or build schools and roads. Bribery was institutionalized, and the tenants suffered growing debt burdens. The unconcealed purpose of this ruthless exploitation was to drive the tenants off the land so it could be divided into private landholdings for serving and retired generals and brigadiers. The rationale of the prospective new owners was that, when the time came, they would re-employ the evicted tenants as farm-serfs: it would be better for everyone. The aim of such â€˜modernizationâ€™â€”in Okara and Sargodha as in Rio Grande do Sulâ€”was, of course, deregulation, privatization and the destruction of tenant solidarity.

The authorities, khaki and civilian, had been attempting to loosen the grip of the tenants over the land by offering short-term contracts and replacing battaiâ€”share-cropping arrangements that allowed tenants to keep half of what they produceâ€”by cash-rents. Till now, the colonial administrationâ€™s Punjab Tenancy Act of 1887 has safeguarded their rights: male tenants and their direct descendants who had cultivated the land for more than two generations had the right of permanent occupancy. It was illegal to eject them from the land. Despite the misery inflicted on their families, the tenants defied all attempts to divide them along religious lines and remained united in a single body: the Anjuman-i-Muzaireen Punjab, or Punjab Tenants Organization, set up in 1996.

In June 2000, without any consultations, the khaki landlords announced the conversion from a system of shared-produce to cash-rents. The tenants were outraged. Every evening there were informal assemblies to discuss the resistance, involving the entire villageâ€”women and children were to play a leading role in this rural intifada. Angered by the daily harassment, the tenants refused merely to defend the status quo and retaliated by demanding complete ownership of the land that their families had worked for decades. Their slogan, Malkiyat ya Mautâ€”â€˜Ownership or Deathâ€™â€”echoed that of similar struggles in other continents. The first public protest took place on 7 October 2000: a four-hour sit-in on the lawn in front of the Deputy Commissionerâ€™s office in Okaraâ€”the second most-powerful post-colonial bureaucrat in the cityâ€”by a thousand tenants protesting against the new scheme. Two days later, the Deputy Director of the military farms rang the local police chief and informed him that the tenants were threatening violence and had, in some villages, prevented the managers from removing (i.e. pilfering) wood. The Frontier Constabulary and Elite Force Rangersâ€”their main function to prevent smuggling over the Indian borderâ€”arrived in the village and began roughing up the tenants. As women and children saw their fathers, brothers and husbands abused and kicked, they poured out of their homes to hurl stones at the police. A number of tenant activists were arrested.

As news of the confrontation spread to neighbouring villages, the protests began to grow. Attempts by the authorities to divide or buy off tenants were a failure. In the spring of 2002 the Rangers opened fire on protesting tenants: some were killed. Organizers were arrested and beaten up in full view of their families. Womenâ€”Christian and Muslimâ€”marched to Okara, carrying the wooden bats they use to beat the clothes as they wash them in the river, and surrounded the police station. Nothing like this had been seen before. The Army realized that, short of a massacre, this could be a protracted struggle. Ironically, the large presence of Christians excluded a blood-bath; it might annoy their co-religionist in the White House. On 9 June 2002, a thousand armed police and rangers surrounded the village of Pirowal. The siege lasted for seven hours, but the police failed to capture the organizers, despite threats to burn the entire cotton crop of the village. They had underestimated the power of peasant solidarity.

In a sharply worded editorial the Karachi daily, Dawn, commented on 24 June 2002:

To win back the confidence of the restive and distraught farmers, the police force sent to harass and terrorize them should be withdrawn immediately and any ill-conceived notion of teaching them a â€˜lessonâ€™ must be abandoned. Cases should be registered against government and farm management officials who ordered the police action that led to deaths . . . Once these confidence-building measures have been taken, the government should sit down and negotiate with the tenants, perhaps through the Punjab Tenants Organization, on how to grant the ownership rights due to them.

The generals ignored the advice of a newspaper that has usually been sympathetic to their needs. Instead, Musharrafâ€™s new status as the trusted ally of the West was used against the PTO, and its non-violent leaders charged under the new â€˜anti-terroristâ€™ legislationâ€”just as the real terrorists, most of whom have, at one time or another, been on the payroll of the military intelligence services, were being released. Despite the fact that Pakistan has been a regular port of call for Western media pundits over the last yearâ€”the New York Timesâ€™s Thomas Friedman preening himself on his intimate knowledge of frontier conditionsâ€”none of the visiting journalists deemed this struggle worthy of attention. It distracted from the only story they wanted to tell: fundamentalism. In fact, of course, mullahs are most effectively marginalized when people see them as irrelevant to their real needsâ€”as the PTO farmers have shown. During the campaign of the last two years, church and mosque have alternated as their meeting places. In a discussion with two of their leadersâ€”Dr Christopher John, the PTO senior vice-president, and Younis Iqbal, general secretaryâ€”in Lahore in December 2002, both stressed that religious divisions had played no part whatsoever in their conflict with the state. At their meetings, Iqbal said, â€˜You couldnâ€™t tell the Muslims and the Christians apartâ€™.

Heroin economy
The only serious breach in the wall dividing an English-educated civilian and military eliteâ€”with access to Western universities, medical schools and military academiesâ€”from the rest of the population, illiterate or semi-literate (largely, but not exclusively, the product of the madrassahs), has been the one made by the â€˜black economyâ€™. Over the last two decades, the cultivation of poppy orchards in Afghanistan and the NWFP has produced a fine crop of heroin millionaires. Many are of peasant or urban petty-bourgeois stock, but their money has funded every political party and thoroughly penetrated the armed forces: cash, kalashnikovs and Pajerosâ€”Japanese Range Roversâ€”have been distributed in all directions. In return, the humble heroin merchants have been loaded with honours and public displays of affection. As good fathers, they made sure their children were properly educated and became part of the elite. The upward mobility of this layer has slightly altered the composition of the property-owning fraction, without changing much else. Money remains the great leveller in the upper reaches of society, while the price of urban land has reached astronomical heights: the price of an apartment in the Defence Colony of Karachi or the fashionable Parade Ground in Lahore does not compare badly with New York or Berlin.

During the nineties, heroin had been despatched to Europe and North America via two routes. The first led along the Grand Trunk Road from Peshawar down to Karachi and thence in container ships to Mediterranean ports. The second, policed by the Russian mafia, went from Afghanistan via Central Asia and Russia to the Balkans, and then to the capitals of the West. The defeat of the Taliban after 9.11 has brought about the virtual collapse of the Pakistani heroin networks. The Northern Alliance now monopolizes the trade and it is their old Russian friends who prosper, while Kosovo has become the main distribution point for most of the world. [16] The Pakistani economy has only withstood the blow because of the cash that has smoothed the path of the American troops.

Since the countryâ€™s foundation in 1947, the Pakistan Army has been the spinal chord of the state apparatus. The weakness of political institutions as the state emerged from British rule, the absence of a bourgeoisie and domination by a rural eliteâ€”a parasitical excrescence of the worst sortâ€”led to an over-reliance on the civilian bureaucracy and the Army. Since there was no real consent for landlord rule, forceâ€”both direct and indirectâ€”had to be brought into play. Both institutions had been created by the colonial power, which formed them in its mold. [17] Whereas the civil service was soon mired in corruption, the Army held out for a little longer. The impression was created that, while individual officers might be susceptible to bribesâ€”they were, after all, humanâ€”the institution itself was clean.

Two long periods of martial law destroyed that image. General Ayub Khanâ€™s family became extremely wealthy during his rule from 1958 to 1969, as did some of his collaborators. And between 1977 and 1989, at least two of General Ziaâ€™s Corps Commanders were centrally involved in the heroin trade and gun-running. Corruption on a lesser scale spread through the junior ranks. The failure to crack down on these practices was hardly accidental. The generals adopted a materialist approach to the problem, seeing it as an easy way to preserve the unity of the Army. The loot could not be shared equally since that might promote egalitarian tendencies among the colonels and majors; but at the same time, the subalterns could not be denied some protection money for their crucial role in â€˜protectingâ€™ Pakistan.

Military threat? Does Pakistan really need such a large defence establishment? The khaki ideologues insist that ever since Partition there has been a permanent military threat from India. The notion, as I have argued elsewhere, is ludicrous. [18] On all three occasions on which the two countries have gone to warâ€”twice over Kashmir, and Bangladeshâ€”the initiative was taken by Pakistan. The Indian Army could have taken West Pakistan in 1971, but was not allowed to cross the international border by its political leaders. Today, with both countries in possession of nuclear delivery systems, it is obvious that neither the Kashmir issue nor any other dispute can be resolved through war. Even an India dominated by Hindu chauvinism and saffron demagogues is hardly likely to attempt a conquest of Pakistan. Who would it benefit? It might be different if Pakistan had limitless quantities of oil lying just beneath the surface. In fact, there is no rationale behind the fear of India. It serves only one purpose: the maintenance of the huge military-industrial complex that sprawls across the country and sustains khaki hegemony.

In truth, the threat to the Armyâ€™s predominance has always come from its own people. The only time the old Pakistan was genuinely united was during the 1969 uprising from below that saw students and workers in Dhaka and Karachi, Chittagong and Lahore, topple the dictatorship of Field Marshal Ayub Khan. The Army never forgave its Bengali citizens this act of treachery, and embarked on a bloodbath when they proceeded to elect the leaders of their choice. It is worth stressing the point, glossed over in so many recent accounts, that the Army which demands such vast sums to preserve the state actually provoked its break-up in 1971.

The Army is now the only ruling institution; its domination of the country is complete. How long can this be sustained? Till now it has managed to preserve the command structure inherited from the British: Pakistani generals often boast of its inviolability when compared to the Middle East or Latin America. But a great deal has changed since the sixties. The officer corps is no longer the exclusive domain of the landed gentryâ€”a majority of officers come from urban backgrounds and are subject to the same influences and pressures as their civilian peers. Privileges have kept them loyal, but the processes that destroy politicians are already at work. Whereas in the recent past it was Nawaz Sharif and his brother, or Benazir Bhutto and her husband, who demanded kickbacks before making deals, it is now General Musharrafâ€™s office that sanctions key projects.

Of course, highâ€”even stratosphericâ€”levels of corruption are no bar to longevity, if a military regime has sufficiently intimidated its population and enjoys solid enough support in Washington, as the Suharto regime in Indonesia testifies. Can Musharraf look forward to this sort of reign? The fate of his dictatorship is likely to depend on the interaction of three main forces. First will be the degree of internal cohesion of the Army itself. Historically, it has never splitâ€”vertically or horizontallyâ€”and its discipline in following a 180-degree turn in policy towards Afghanistan, whatever the sweeteners that have accompanied it, has so far been impressive. It is not impossible that one day some patriotic officer might deliver the country of its latest tyrant, as Zia was once mysteriously sent on his way to Gehenna; but for the minute, such an ending appears improbable. Having weathered the humiliation of its abandonment of the Taliban, the high command looks capable of brazening out any further acts of obeisance to orders from the Pentagon.

What of parliamentary opposition to military rule? Vexing though the upshot of Octoberâ€™s election, for all its fraud, proved to be for Musharraf, the parties that dominate the political landscape in Pakistan offer little hope of rebellion against him. The cringing opportunism of the Bhutto and Sharif clans knows few limits. The Islamist front ensconced in Peshawar and Quetta is noisier, but not more principledâ€”cash and perquisites quickly stilling most of its protests. Popular discontent remains massive, but lacks any effective channels of national expression. It would be good to think that their performances in office had discredited the PPP and Sharifâ€™s clique forever, but experience suggests that should the regime at any point start to crack, there is little to prevent these phoenixes of sleaze from arising once more, in the absence of any more progressive alternatives.

Finally, there is the American overlord itself. The Musharraf regime cannot aspire to play the same role as regional satrap that Zia once enjoyed. Pakistan has been ousted as imperial instrument in Afghanistan, and checked from compensating with renewed incursions in Kashmir. But if Islamabad has been forced into a more passive posture along its northern borders, its strategic importance for the US has, if anything, increased. For Washington has now made a huge political investment in the creation of a puppet regime in Kabul, to be guarded by US troops â€˜for years to comeâ€™, in the words of General Tommy Franksâ€”not to speak of its continuing hunt for Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants. Pakistan is a vital flank in the pursuit of both objectives, and its top brass can look forward to the kind of lavish emoluments, public and private, that the Thai military received for their decades of collusion with the American war in Indochina. Still, Washington is pragmatic and knows that Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were just as serviceable agents of its designs in Kabul as Zia himself. Should he falter domestically, Musharraf will be ditched without sentiment by the suzerain. The Pax Americana can wage war with any number of proxies. It will take an uprising on the scale of 1969 to shake Pakistan free of them.

The United States' choice of Pakistan as an ally in its "war on terrorism" provides the spectacle of the two leading terrorist states on Earth "fighting terrorism." The U.S. has killed more than eight million people in the Third World since 1945, while Pakistan slaughtered almost three million Bengalis in the Eastern wing of the country in 1971. This caused the break-up of the state, with East Pakistan separating and becoming Bangladesh.

Since 1951, Pakistan's main purpose has been to act as the U.S. government's South Asian terrorist arm, serving to destabilize the former Soviet Union, India and Afghanistan, and crushing all attempts at domestic democracy. Washington's instrument has been the Pakistan army, which U.S. officials have called "the greatest single stabilizing force in the country." Its major "military" campaigns have been launched against its own unarmed people.

Soon after Pakistan's independence in 1947, the U.S. provided $411 million to establish its armed forces. When the country's first democratic elections scheduled for 1958 threatened to reduce the army's power, General Mohammed Ayub Khan, the commander-in-chief, cancelled them and took over the government in a coup. This created a military dictatorship that continues to this day.

Pakistan became a U.S.-financed garrison state, spending 80% of its budget on the military, which massacred thousands of people and ensured that most of those not killed continued to be mired in poverty and illiteracy.

Ayub was an actual employee of the U.S. State Department, which paid him an annual salary of U.S.$16,000. There is little doubt that the U.S. government was "fully aware" that the Pakistan army was planning a coup. A few years after the 1958 coup, Sardar Bahadur, Ayub's brother, alleged that the CIA had "been fully involved" in the coup. Ayub declared Pakistan to be Washington's "most allied ally," and explained his takeover by claiming that "Democracy cannot work in a hot climate." Ayub allowed the U.S. to use Pakistani air bases for the CIA's U-2 spy flights over the Soviet Union. The U.S. also controlled a signals intelligence facility near Peshawar which monitored Soviet military activity.

Such servility prompted John Foster Dulles, the U.S. Secretary of State (during the 1950s), to call Pakistan "a bulwark of freedom in Asia." As Milton Bearden, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, recently put it, "[Pakistan is] the only country in South Asia that always did what we asked."

The Pakistan government's terrorism has mainly been perpetrated against its own people, with the U.S.-armed and trained military unleashing genocidal wars on all those who dared oppose its dictatorship. With U.S. arms, training, military aid, and encouragement, the Pakistan army butchered half a million to three million Bengalis in 1971 when their popular, elected, left-wing leadership had the temerity to demand provincial autonomy.

U.S. officials reacted to this slaughter by thanking General Yahya Khan, the Pakistani military dictator, for his "delicacy and tact." As one eye witness described it, the army in East Pakistan was "like a pack of wild dogs," killing "on a scale not seen since the Third Reich." One thousand intellectuals were murdered in a single day at Dhaka University alone. "Women were raped or had their breasts torn out with specially fashioned knives," one journalist (who fled) reported.

"Children did not escape the horror: the lucky ones were killed with their parents; but many thousands of others must go through what life remains for them with eyes gouged out and limbs roughly amputated."

Losing East Pakistan (which constituted half the country) did not prevent the army from attacking another province only two years later. In 1973, four Pakistan army divisions assaulted Baluch tribal communities in the province of Baluchistan, wiping out "mountain villages and nomad caravans." Like the Bengalis, the Baluchi political leadership was elected, popular, leftwing, and also wanted autonomy.

Mirage fighter-bombers and U.S. Cobra helicopter gunships pummeled unarmed Baluch civilians for five years. Of the 5,000 Baluch men, women and children captured by the army in 1977, 95% were "brutally tortured." As one account put it: "Apart from the standard practice of severe beatings, limbs are broken or cut off; eyes gouged out; electric shocks are applied, especially to the genitals; beards and hair are torn out; fingernails ripped; water and food are withheld."

The Pakistan army has provided Washington with an instrument for crushing or hindering progressive social movements, not just inside Pakistan, but also in South Asia. India's nonalignment and the good relations of both India and Afghanistan with the Soviet Union were anathema to Washington, which deployed Pakistan against both countries.

When a left-wing government came to power in Afghanistan in 1978, the U.S. decided to overthrow it, using Pakistan as a conduit. The New York Times described the main objectives of this government as being the implementation of land reform and the expansion of education for women. Afghan Islamic fundamentalist groups (known as Mujahideen) in exile in Pakistan were covertly armed by the CIA and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and sent into Afghanistan.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Adviser in the Carter administration, knew that this policy would, as he put it, "induce a Soviet intervention in Afghanistan." Brzezinski stated in a recent interview: "That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap." Once the Soviets invaded in December 1979, the U.S. poured $6 billion in military aid to the Mujahideen through Pakistan. The ensuing war destroyed Afghanistan, ending all hope of progressive reforms.

With the withdrawal of the Soviets in 1989, Afghanistan became a centre for U.S. and Pakistani backed international terrorism. Islamist fighters trained there poured into Central Asia and India, aiming to create a pan-Islamic state stretching from Kashmir to Kazakhstan. The Taliban was a CIA-ISI creation as well, and its relations with Washington only soured when the two failed to reach an accord on sharing the oil riches of Central Asia.

According to Prof. Michel Chossudovsky at the University of Ottawa, "Since the Soviet-Afghan war, recruiting Mujahedin to fight covert wars on Washington's behest has become an integral part of U.S. foreign policy. A 1997 document of the U.S. Congress reveals how the Clinton administration had "helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base," leading to the recruitment through the so-called "Militant Islamic Network" of thousands of Mujahedin from the Muslim world. "The 'Bosnian pattern' has since been replicated in Kosovo, Southern Serbia and Macedonia."

India has long been the kind of Third World state that Washington detested. It had close relations with the Soviet Union, followed an independent foreign policy, opposed Western imperialist adventures, and created a significant public sector industrial base and a protected domestic economy which included two communist states (West Bengal and Kerala). The U.S. response has been to "bleed India" through Pak-istan's support for secessionist insurgencies in order to open up the Indian economy to American penetration.

In the 1980s, Pakistan trained and armed Sikh militants who fought for a separate homeland in Indian Punjab. Today, in the disputed state of Indian Kashmir, Pakistan has been "sponsoring terrorism" for more than a decade. Islamic militants trained and armed in Pakistan and Afghanistan have been fighting for Kashmir's integration with Pakistan, leading to about 60,000 deaths.

On October 1, 2001, these groups exploded a car bomb that killed 38 people (most of them civilians) near the state legislature building in Srinagar. On December 13, 2001, two Pakistan based terrorist groups attacked the Indian parliament in New Delhi. Fourteen people were killed, including five of the terrorists. India moved half a million troops to its border with Pakistan and the two armies--both possessing nuclear weapons--still stand on the brink of war.

No doubt heavy-handed Indian policies have alienated Sikhs and Kashmiris, and India is guilty of massive human rights violations in Kashmir; but, as The New York Times put it, "Since 1994, the role of native Kashmiris in the insurgency has diminished as heavily-armed outsiders from Pakistan and Afghanistan have stepped up the violence."

These insurgencies have sapped India's ability to build its economic infrastucture. This, according to one observer, has "slowed the pace of growth and development, and precipitated demands for rapid privatization and reliance on foreign investment."

The rewards for being a U.S. terrorist arm in South Asia have been lucrative for the Pakistan military's officer corps. During the war against the Soviets, Afghanistan supplied 60% of the U.S.'s heroin. Pakistani generals "were deeply involved" in this drug trade, and three of them were counted amongst the twelve richest generals in the world.

The most prominent was General Fazle Haq, known as "Pakistan's Noriega." Haq was appointed governor of the Northwest Frontier Province (bordering Afghanistan) by General Ziaul Haq, Pakistan's military dictator during 1977-1988. As governor, Fazle Haq was in charge of Mujahideen military operations. He also protected the production of 200 heroin labs near the border. In 1982, Interpol identified Haq as "a key player in the Afghan-Pakistani opium trade."

Haq. who had $3 million in his bank account, was protected from drug investigations by Zia and the CIA. In 1993, Raoof Ali Khan, Pakistan's representative to the UN Commission on Narcotics, said that "there is no branch of government where drug corruption does not pervade." The CIA reported to the U.S. Congress in 1994 that heroin had become "the life-blood of the Pakistani economy and political system."

Drug trafficking is just one part of the Pakistani military's parasitism. The armed forces own an airline, sugar mills, chemical plants, a cereal factory, and several hospitals. Officers and their families are supplied with free servants, education, and medical care, and the best real estate in large cities is reserved for them.

The price for their country's being a U.S. terrorist base has been paid by the Pakistani people, who for 55 years have been massacred, tortured, denied education (the illiteracy rate in Pakistan is 90%), medical care, housing, adequate nutrition, and political rights. Pakistan ranks near the bottom of the UN's list of countries by every measure of human development, including infant mortality, life expectancy, the poverty rate, and the population growth rate.

With India and Pakistan almost perpetually on the brink of nuclear war, continued subservience by Pakistan to U.S. dictates exposes its oppressed people to total eradication

The fact is, the Army itself has a disastrous record of incompetence that goes far beyond the present crisis, and many a Pakistani commentator has noted that each spell of military rule in the country has culminated in a national catastrophe.

KPS Gill

Fascist apologists would notoriously boast that Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy (itself a dubious claim), and this, in substantial measure, has been the perennial justification for dictatorships, military rule and other authoritarian forms of government. It is an argument that has, in different forms, been advanced in support of General Pervez Musharraf's junta in Pakistan as well; champions - both domestic and foreign - have argued that the General is the only one who 'can deliver' in the country, and hence the only one Western governments can 'do business' with. But the Musharraf regime's, and the Pakistani Army's 'capacity to deliver' -certainly to its own people - has been found to be entirely lacking in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake that has rocked parts of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), killing tens of thousands, and flattening out entire townships and villages at a stroke. As one Pakistani commentator noted, the Army, "the avowed vanguard of Pakistani society - was leaden on its feet and seemed overwhelmed by the catastrophe." Three weeks after the quake, while hundreds of non-governmental entities - including, prominently, several jihadi groups (which, according to Pakistan's official position, do not, in fact, exist, have been 'banned', and have had their infrastructure 'dismantled') - have made their presence felt in relief efforts in some of the remotest areas of the affected region, the Army and governmental apparatus is still to come to grips with the basics.
Even in Muzzafarabad - the town most easily accessed - heavy machinery for the clearance of the debris of collapsed buildings is still to be delivered, and a large number of bodies remain trapped under rubble, with people using spades and shovels and whatever primitive equipment they can get their hands on to clean up the mess. The bulk of official efforts, in any event, remain concentrated in the main towns such as Muzzafarabad, Bagh and Rawalkot; but entire villages in wide areas have been flattened by the earthquake, and access and relief to these remains acutely inadequate. Sources in PoK complain bitterly of the 'complete human failure' and fear that it will result in a second tragedy, potentially greater than the earthquake itself, as the bitter Kashmiri winter sets in on a people without shelter. In the meanwhile, international organisations have criticised government agencies for obstructing relief efforts and for discriminatory and selective distribution of relief material - including, crucially, a large number of tents that have been brought in by many donor agencies. Stories of a black market in tents - run by Army officials - have been doing the rounds in the media, and one prominent observer has noted that the distribution of tents is "being used for power and patronage by military and civilian authorities that control the territory". These are all matters of detail - and evidence of the Army's incompetence, bias and corruption will continue to pile up as more light is brought to bear upon the course of relief efforts and the utilisation of the millions of dollars for relief and rehabilitation that have poured into the Government's coffer's since the earthquake. What is crucial, however, is an attitude of mind. The Pakistan Army has never regarded PoK or the NWFP as anything more than an area of strategic importance.

The people of these regions have always been of little consequence. Unsurprisingly, in the wake of the earthquake, there was hardly any effort to rush immediate help to the victims - rather, tens of thousands of troops were moved up to reinforce the LoC, with convoys driving through and past devastated towns and villages, indifferent to the enveloping suffering of the people. This reveals a deep pathology in the Pakistani military mind, and it is fairly certain that, if the scale of devastation and dislocation experience in PoK had rather occurred across the LoC, in J&K, Pakistan would have sent in its Forces - no doubt masquerading as 'irregulars' - to grab as much territory as was possible. It is beyond the capacities of this mindset to imagine that India would not do the same. The competence of the military regime to bring relief to the victims of the earthquake is undermined further by the chronic inadequacies of institutional development and the state's outreach in the affected regions. When entire areas are held with an exclusive focus on grand strategy, military tactics and political power play, without thinking of the human beings, there is, naturally, no planning for the people. This, of course, is happening in some measure all over Pakistan - and is characteristic of all dictatorships - but it is a chronic problem in PoK and the NWFP, where institutional development has been systematically crippled in a perverse policy to keep the people in thraldom in the pursuit of Islamabad's inchoate quest for 'strategic depth'. The communities of PoK and NWFP have been entirely dehumanised, and Islamabad has never had much interest in their daily lives; these territories, however, have been integral to the Pakistani (overwhelmingly Punjabi) military leadership's concept of their 'interests of state'.

Pakistan's narcissistic Army has heaped limitless contempt on civilian rule and institutions, and on democratic politics. It is now time to challenge and extinguish this myth. The fact is, the Army itself has a disastrous record of incompetence that goes far beyond the present crisis, and many a Pakistani commentator has noted that each spell of military rule in the country has culminated in a national catastrophe: "Dictators took the country into foolish and unnecessary wars, dictators who sowed the seeds of Pakistan's break-up, dictators and shortsighted intelligence chiefs who danced to America's tune and turned Pakistan into a crossroads of international jihad. The Pakistani dream, if ever there was one, has been betrayed at the altar of this tradition." Pakistan's Army is, in fact, at the heart of the country's problems; it is no part of their solutions. Claims that the Musharraf regime will bring back democracy to Pakistan and remove corruption now stand totally discredited - the Army has systematically undermined democratic institutions and processes and weakened mainstream political parties, and is itself the country's most corrupt organisation, "and an unchallenged holder of country's resources and wealth". The enormous humanitarian tragedy brought about by the earthquake - and the visible pattern of the Army's response - has simply reiterated these long-standing realities.

As an aside, within this context, it is useful to note that some Pakistani writers are plaintively asking why India is "dragging its feet" on Gen Musharraf's proposal to turn the Line of Control into a soft border. Perhaps they have not noticed the nearly 40,000 killed in J&K by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists over the last 17 years, and the continuing spate of terrorist attacks and assassinations in the State by groups headquartered in Pakistan. And while many in Pakistan are today celebrating the 'humanity', generosity and efficiency of the jihadi groups involved in relief work, they will live to rue the day, when these terrorist entities call their debt, and a grateful and deeply indebted people respond in large numbers by enlisting in the future armies of terror

Tyrant rulers have always adopted hostile methods to choke the voices against them. Any person who protests against their totalitarian regime is singled out as a lesson for others. The protestor thus becomes a victim of naked aggression of state governed and institutionalized terrorism.

This principle of dictatorial regimes still serves as a ruling foundation in Pakistan with its blatant malice, despite all the claims of unchecked, chieftain to supporting freedom of expression and safeguarding human rights. However this time around, the application of this gagging principle is done in a different fashion by the Musharraf regime.

General Musharraf has invented and pioneered a new method of cruelty. Besides the sham reverse engineering he did to produce the fascist versions of â€œenlighten moderationâ€ and â€œliberalismâ€ in the laboratory of GHQ. This contemporary method of gagging is a practice to magically disappear a person from the scene of commonality who objects to the illegitimate rule and struggles for human rights.

Before the year 2001, this was not the usual method used to suppress the rising voices. This technique, along with other pretentious reforms was implemented in Pakistan by the military governments as a result of the so called war on terrorism by the U.S. This method of abductions has succeeded like the sham version of enlighten moderation of General Musharraf. Because people can point fingers to the government, however, they cannot produce empirical evidence that these mysterious abductions are done on the orders of the government and government easily avoids the burning questions by giving a lame excuse of judicial inquiry in this issue.

In the beginning, rulers adopted this approach to increase its revenues. According to the report of Amnesty International hundreds of Pakistani citizens and foreigners were abducted from different regions of Pakistan and sent to Guantanamo Bay. Many people were arrested without warrant, declared terrorists without investigation and sold to the Unites States for US$5000 each. Furthermore, Amnesty International adds that human rights were badly abused while making these arrests. Detainees were transferred to the torture cells of Guantanamo from Bagram airbase and no information was released to their families and relatives. Families of many detainees still have no clue concerning the whereabouts of their beloved ones. Amnesty International also argues that Pakistani government is responsible for the imprisonment of these detainees at Guantanamo without any charge, concrete evidence and due process of law.

The common people affected by the US war against terrorism are not the only category among the detainees at Guantanamo. In fact, the critics of government, journalists, scholars, political workers and even the students have become the prey of this savage cannibalism and man hunt. Some of these abducted people, who were released, appeared on the public forum after few months and then they were stopped from giving statements by additional torture and threats of government agencies. However, majority recorded their statements and confirmed that they were kidnapped by the government investigation agencies, interrogated at unknown locations and tortured physically and mentally in the most inhumane and despicable ways.

Muhammad Saleem Baloch, Senior Vice President of Jamhori Watan Party was arrested in March, 2006 at the charge of protesting against the military operation in Balochistan, outside Karachi Press Club, and then kept in detention at an unknown location. Saleem Baloch was released from Rawalpindi after eight months of illegal detention. After release Saleem Baloch issued a statement that he was detained by the government law enforcement agencies and was tortured in a brutal manner. According to Saleem Baloch these agencies have many other people in their custody who are ostensibly known as missing.

The operation which is being carried out in Balochistan has been used as a justification by the government to restrict the exercise of basic rights by the people to obtain information. Neither a Pakistani newspaper nor a TV channel can air the news about the plight of the people of Balochistan. As a result outsiders do not have any idea about Balochistanâ€™s internal turmoil. Munir Mengal who lived in Bahrain had decided to start a television transmission from Bahrain to expose the plight of Balochistan to the outside world. Revealing the crimes of the government is itself considered an unforgivable sin. Mengal was taken in custody by the investigation agencies upon his arrival in Pakistan, right from the airport on 7th April, 2006 and since then his family members are waiting to see him.

A young journalist Hayat Ullah-Khan who dared to go to the tribal border areas for the news reporting of American activities was also accused of committing the crime because his reports were in contradiction with the reports released by the government. This young journalist was kidnapped by the agencies in December, 2005 and then his dead body was discovered months after he went missing. According to the eye witnesses who discovered the body, Hayat was savagely tortured to death and such torture could only be carried out by Pakistani investigation agencies.

Saleem Baloch, Munir Mengal and Hayat Ullah Khan are just the very few examples. The circle of this state bedevil is expanding with each passing day. Whether it is a journalist or political worker, critic of the government or student of Islamic school, anyone can be declared as Islamic militant and legitimate target for kidnapping by the government agencies. There is no need for a warrant, investigation or evidence or due process of law because being a critical of the government Pakistani citizen is more than enough of a reason to be held guilty.

According to the report of Human Rights Watch more than four hundred people became the target of this extra judicial arrest routine. More than seventy people were abducted from Karachi only. Among these people are included journalists, political workers, scholars, doctors, students and people struggling for their basic rights. These four hundred missing people are not among those who became the direct prey of the war against terrorism. There is no information available regarding the whereabouts of these people. Eye witnesses stated in majority of these cases of â€œforced disappearancesâ€ that the victims were kidnapped by the government agency officials. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other human rights organization have condemned this attitude of Pakistani government.

Human rights agencies demand the Government of Pakistan to pay attention to the deteriorating situation of human rights. Pakistani officials respond to these requests in the form of baton charge over the peaceful protest rallies of the families of the detainees. Family members of these missing people have been protesting for the release of their beloved ones for a very long period. The participants of the protest rally of 28th December, 2005 among which the majority were children and female relatives of these detainees were treated with the baton charge and welcomed with tear gas. The pictures of this savageness, which were published in the newspapers around the world, sent shivering waves down the spinal of everyone man and woman with the slightest regard for humanity.

One picture in particular gained lofty reputation for Pakistani police. In this picture a fifteen year old boy demanding the release of his father is shown. He was punished for this disobedience when he was stripped naked right on the road and received cans of police on bare buttocks. Moreover, this picture also illustrates a young, twelve year old girl who is helplessly crying for mercy from concept dictator who doesnâ€™t know the concept of mercy. The Supreme Court of Pakistan issued a warning to the government after the publication of these pictures. However, will any warning be ever effective on a dictatorial regime like this?

According to the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Charter of Human Rights the security of the public is the responsibility of the government. However, when a regime becomes the enemy of its own people, when it sells its citizens for US$5000 each, when the criticism on government policies becomes an unforgivable crime how then can one protest and to whom? Given the fact that the very existence of such government contradicts with the constitution, how can it be expected that this government will respect the constitution?
These mysterious, â€œforced disappearancesâ€ is a grave problem and its severity is soaring with each passing day. This dilemma does not only concern the detainees but it is also a crisis for their family members who have been waiting for their beloved ones since ages. The family members of the detainees are also doomed to suffer the state of torture every day. It is the responsibility of all Pakistani citizens to carry out an organized protest before government targets another citizen for abduction, torture and possible murder.

Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chudhry was, â€œSuspendedâ€ on 9th of March, 2007 on the charges of abusing his powers. The fascinating and attention grabbing fact in this regard is that the allegations have been put forward by a ruler who is globally known for his notorious practice of abusing power and exploiting his authority.

Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chudhry was sworn in the office of Chief Justice of Pakistan in June, 2005. Justice Chudhry gained the national reputation because of those cases in which he passed the verdict against the spirit of government of Pakistan. These rulings became undesirable to the rulers and resulted in his suspension.

Freezing the privatization of Pakistanâ€™s steel mills was not the only intolerable decision for the rulers. In fact the hurling denunciation he did to the government during the hearings of illegal and forceful abductions was also an unpopular step in the courtyard of dictatorship. It is also noticeable that a day before his suspension he attended the hearing of the case of forceful abductions. During this hearing Asma Jahangir and Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim demanded from the platform of Human Right Commission to assign a commission for the release of detainees, to which, witnesses can be represented and suitable investigation can take place to uncover that how those people were kidnapped and where they were kept. In this hearing Justice Chudhry issued a notice to Attorney General. The fact is that the steps taken by the Chief Justice in solving the case of these mysterious abductions were creating unacceptable circumstances for the rulers. Thus justice Chudhry emerged as a hurdle in the path of rulersâ€™ wicked objectives. General Musharraf has put up the show of his power by sacking the chief justice and trying to deliver a message that he is an authoritative ruler and whosoever attempts to become a hurdle in path of his malevolence goals, will not be tolerated. General Musharraf called the Justice for the explanation of the charges against him at Army House instead of the Presidency and kept him there for five hours to show his martial supremacy. This act on the part of General Musharraf is a proclamation that he is a military dictator and he can do anything he wants on the base of his power. Suspension of Justice Chudhry has exposed the tyranny that was behind the smoke screens of Pseudo-Democracy and so called Enlighten Moderation. Moreover, General Musharraf has proved that he is only a military dictator, ruling at gun point.

According to Hussein Haqani, â€œThe reason for the suspension of Chief Justice is not his weaknesses; in fact it was the actions he took in cases which were unwanted for the rulers. He passed such judgments that became the source of mortification for the military dictator. Naeem Bukhariâ€™s controversial open letter to the Chief Justice gained lofty identification in this issue. Bukhari targeted the character of Chief Justice in this letter. The objections raised against the Chief Justice in this letter are ludicrous. For instance the objection rose against his protocol. In the country like Pakistan where the protocol of high officials and ministers is not considered something out of normal; upon the arrival of Prime Minister, President and Chief Ministers the traffic is ordered to be jammed; even an ambulance is not permitted to pass; life of all the citizens of that city is ordered to stand at still for the sake of the locomotion of VIPs. There the objection on the protocol of three cars and the order of judicial hearing on such protocol by a President with thirty protocol cars, if does not seem comical then what else does it seem? Second big objection against Justice Chudhry is the abuse of his power for the appointment of his son in the department of police; again the reference against this objection is filed by the President against whom the evidence is published in South Asia Tribune for rewarding the contracts of billions of rupees to his son and sonâ€™s father in law.

The ratio of authenticity in the charges against Chief Justice is still unknown, however, according to BBC not a single charge against him is considered out of normal practice in Pakistan. Many such charges have been raised against various judges and high officials but no action has ever been taken. Justice Chudhry is the first judge who became the target of such inquiry and this reflects that the goals of this action taken by the President are unusually unique.

The Chief justice was suspended by using similar charges filed in a reference against him. Surprisingly, General Musharraf has observed the (ab)use of authority by the Chief Justice for the appointment of his son but he is incapable to take notice of his companions of PML-Q, about whom, it is mentioned in the survey of Immensity International that they are the most corrupt ruling partners, to come in the government, in the entire history of Pakistan. General Musharraf has taken the support of such feeble charges to suspend the Chief Justice that are not acceptable to anyone. The objection about the abuse of power is raised by a person whose very appearance in the government is an exploitation of power. This action of General Musharraf has faced intense confrontation on the public forum, even the columnist of daily express whose only reason of popularity is to pay tribute to General has also declared this action a â€œblunderâ€ by General Musharraf.

Asma Jahangir, while giving review, in her exclusive conversation with Laborers Struggle Movement said that this reference was not filed on the base of a letter by some advocate. Many such letters were written and roamed around back and forth. The reality was that His Excellency King had started to feel unsafe. He was even afraid of an aunt and justice Chudhry was a Chief Justice.
One of the objections in the letter written by Naeem Bukhari was that Chief Justice had harsh attitude towards the advocates of Supreme Court. The protest is being carried out by the advocates of Supreme Court in the whole country against the suspension of justice Chudhry and this act of General Musharraf is being declared unconstitutional. The show of this solidarity with Chief Justice of Pakistan has exposed the fallacy of Naeem Bukhariâ€™s objection. Responding to this act of General Musharraf Punjab Bar Council has suspended the membership of advocate Naeem Bukhari and banned his entry in the bar offices of the whole province.

According to the press release of bar, advocate Naeem Bukhari has become a handy tool of dictatorship thus violating his professional responsibilities. The bar council announced, boycott of the courts on 12th and 13th March, protest processions in the whole country and hailing of black flags in the offices of bar. Moreover, the day of 9th March will be mourned every year as the black day by the bar.

One reason for the fame of Justice Chudhry was his Suo-Motto actions (on its own motion) in different cases that revived the confidence of public on judiciary. He came forward on public forum, as a well-wisher of common man by using his power of Suo-Motto action for the security of basic rights. (Naeem Bukhari has an objection on these actions as well. In Bukhariâ€™s opinion such inquiries are inferior to the standards of Supreme Court and Supreme Court should not get itself involved in â€œless importantâ€ issues like basic rights). Justice Chudhry set a record of finalizing cases in a short period of time. The decision he passed in the favor of kiln workers and forced labor became the cause of judiciaryâ€™s improved reputation in the heart of public.

According to BBC he had many critics. However, his critics, admirers and everyone else agree that he ran the Supreme Court with accelerated efficiency; he formed maximum number of benches, worked day and night to reduce the burden of the Supreme Court by finalizing maximum number of cases in the shortest possible time frame. It is because of these steps of him that the honor of judiciary was restored. The act of General Musharraf and filing of a judicial reference to defame Chief Justice is nothing else than a conspiracy to jeopardize the respect of judiciary in the hearts of public.

Justice Chudhry also finalized the cases of illegal occupation of armed forces on private real estate, in which he did not only pass a verdict against the martial institutions but also scolded the army officers. Other than low ranking officers he also rebuked the high officials of armed forces for their reckless behavior towards the duty and gave an ultimatum to Punjab Police to control the soaring graph of street crime. Justice Chudhry took an independent action on many occasions about the injustices done to people and provided a relief to possible extent. Another important case of him is regarding the ban on commemoration of Basant carnival. The Government of Punjab overlooked the ban of the Supreme Court and allowed the celebration of Basant, which resulted in more than ten casualties only in Lahore. Justice Chudhry held Punjab Government responsible for the casualties on Basant; perhaps these remarks of justice also became the source of discomfort for the President who is an enthusiastic fan of basant partying.

Justice Chudhryâ€™s popularity was increasing with every passing day because of his public friendly rulings and oppressed public, look towards him as a hope against the dictatorial tyranny. These specific steps of justice turned him disobedient in the opinion of government. His decisions became the source of embarrassment for rulers; in particular his exceptional interest in the case of mysterious abductions was the source of fears for the rulers. During the case of abductions he scolded the government agencies, engaged in such brutal practice and took a notice of torture of the police over the procession of the families of detainees. These actions for the security of basic human rights were unacceptable for the government at any cost. The reasons behind the suspension of Chief Justice are very profound. The charges against him do not carry any sense in a country like Pakistan where roots of VIP culture are deep and every official takes the disadvantage of his authority. This act of General Musharraf expresses his dictatorial approach and delivers a message that he will not tolerate any voice against his opinion and he can descend to any shallow point to sustain his power. This act of General Musharraf carries a special meaning at the time when elections are just around the corner. General Musharraf who wants to get him elected from the same parliament will not endure any hurdle in the passage of this unconstitutional and unlawful goal. It can be said after reviewing the record of Justice Chudhry that he could have given a decision against this will of General Musharraf. Secondly, by sacking Justice Chudhry, General Musharraf has been trying to deliver this message to the Chief Election Commissioner and Judiciary that he will execute any action to have his champions won the election and no one, better not dare to act against his will. It has been exposed by this act of General Musharraf that the expectation for independent and prudent election cannot be kept intact in his presence. Moreover, he is incapable to stand any opposition.

According to one comment of BBC, â€œNevertheless, what was the fault committed by Justice Chudhry that General Musharraf had to take an action which was not liked to be carried out by totalitarian rulers before him. During the year of 2007, General Musharraf has to prolong his rule by using his rooks and pawns and perhaps he will not bear anyone, about whom he has the slightest element of doubt for executing an independent decision.â€
It is also worth to notice here that this is not the first invasion of General Pervez Musharraf on judiciary. Earlier than that, Chief Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui who refused to take oath to testify loyalty with Generalâ€™s martial government was fired from his appointment along with five other judges in March 2000. The reality is that General Pervez Musharraf, like every dictator is not capable to tolerate the opposing view, and believes in removing his contenders by the use of muscle. Mysterious abductions of political workers, assassinations of journalists, extra judicial killing of Akbar Bugti, bombardment on religious schools and current assault on the highest judiciary is the continuity of his atrocious policies that reflect the image of his autocratic mindset.
According to the information, Justice Chudhry has been put into house arrest at his residence in Islamabad and no one is allowed to see him. Neither, any journalist is allowed to meet him to solicit his point of view, nor Justice Chudhry is permitted to seek the advice of anyone for the advocacy of his case. According to some sources he is being pressurized to resign and not to pursue the defense against the filed judicial reference.

From snatching the office of President to the sacking Chief Justice, every step taken by General Pervez Musharraf is unlawful and unconstitutional, and cannot be supported in any situation. The necessity of the time demands the commonalty to organize and chase a countrywide campaign against this savage step

People make filters which filter the noise but the 'definition of noise' is fed to those filters by the makers of that filter, so carry on with your filters

Click to expand...

nah!its the people who under decades of tyranny suffer from Stockholm syndrome and thus are unable to make correct decisions wrt noise and truth thats why they always blame anything to Y-Y-Y conspiracy.